Erroneous interpretations

Since he became the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis has indeed been demonstrating to us a relatively new and quite different approach in spreading the Gospel of Love. Oftentimes, his open and candid, plain and simple, merciful and compassionate and down-to-earth ways of teaching and implementing Church doctrines is erroneously interpreted and cited as gradual steps towards easing up and reforming the sacred and infallible truths of the Church allegedly in keeping with the modern trends.

Foremost among the subjects is about the Church’s stand on divorce. Some pronouncements of the Pope especially during the last Synod of Bishops on “Family Life” have been interpreted by some radical reformists in the Church as initiatives leading to eventual recognition of divorce among married Catholics. Advocates and supporters of divorce are also saying that Pope Francis seems to be in favor of divorce when he just talked about the inevitable separation of the spouses in one of his weekly general audience, telling them that: “There are cases in which separation is inevitable. Sometimes it can become even morally necessary precisely when it comes to subtracting the weaker spouse, or small children, from more serious injuries caused by arrogance and indifference, by humiliation and exploitation… and by indifference.” Even if the Pope was only talking about separation of spouses, and not about divorce, some sectors are still saying that he seems to be favoring divorce.

Then just a few days ago, Pope Francis is once more erroneously seen as undermining the sanctity of marriage when he issued a new law “simplifying and dramatically shortening” the process of annulling marriages when a fundamental flaw has made them invalid. The reforms actually involve a faster procedure handled by local bishops themselves in places where the three judge matrimonial tribunal isn’t available. The changes include the following: (1) one sentence of nullity with one judge, under the responsibility of the bishop to oversee the process is enough; (2) under certain circumstances, each bishop himself can serve as the judge; (3) in case of annulment being evident, the process will be even shorter and completed within 45 days: (4) the local bishops conference will help individual bishops in the reform process and guarantee it to be free of charge “save for the just and decent remuneration of workers of the courts” (5) no more automatic appeal after the first decision is made. In case appeal is required, it can be dealt with locally on the level of the nearest archdiocese instead of taking it to the Vatican; and (6), a second appeal can be made to the Vatican.

An annulment is “a finding by a Church court that a union between a man and a woman even it it was ratified with a Church wedding, was not a real marriage because it didn’t meet one of the traditional test for validity, such as informed consent.” Under the rules of the Church, Catholics whose relationships break down and who wish to remarry someone else in the Church must first obtain an annulment. This is entirely different from divorce which concerns a real and valid marriage with no fundamental flaw but is nevertheless dissolved for cause arising after its celebration. In church annulment, there is no marriage bond formed at all from the beginning which is dissolved. In divorce there is a valid and existing marriage bond that is dissolved. So the Church is against divorce as it is against the sanctity and inviolability of marriage.

Pope Francis himself describes his reform “as no less than just simplicity” so that “the heart of the faithful awaiting clarification (of their marital status) is not long oppressed by the darkness of doubt.  The streamlining of the process is made because of “concern for the salvation of souls while maintaining the Church traditional ban on divorce.” It is the Pope’s way of reaching out tenderly to those who suffer from invalid marriage; to Catholics who suffer quietly from the bond or obligation of what they thought was a marriage when the truth is there was no marriage to speak of from the very start.”  So it can never be interpreted as a step towards favoring divorce which pertains to a real, valid and existing marriage that is dissolved.

Another recent move by the Pope is to concede to all priests… the “discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with a contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it”.  Certain sectors are again are giving this statement another meaning and making it appear that the Pope may be undermining the sanctity of life. Actually however the Pope is just emulating the compassion and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ who is always ready to forgive sinners.  Pope Francis is once more simply showing us his novel approach in spreading the Gospel of Love by tenderly reaching out to Catholics “who despite deserving punishment, have become conscious of the injustice they worked and sincerely wish to  re-enter society and make their honest contribution to it.” It should never be construed as condoning abortion which destroys the life of the unborn from conception. The Pope is just saying that once these sinners are “convinced that God is a loving and merciful Father always ready to give us a big hug and a new opportunity in spite of our past, our history, our sins and infidelities as long as we humbly recognize our faults and return to Him with a contrite heart.” Abortion is still condemned not only by the Church but even by the State which is mandated to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.

Coming to mind in this connection is the recent move of a director of Philhealth who recently announced that the agency is distributing contraceptive pills. This may be in violation of TRO issued by the Supreme Court upholding its ruling that prohibits the use of contraceptives that are abortifacients or those inducing abortion not only primarily or directly but also secondarily especially those preventing the implantation of the fertilized ovum. This Philheath director may be cited in contempt of the Supreme Court.

* * *

Email: [email protected]